 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rose Medical Center v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.12/1/1994
In this action to enforce a statutory hospital lien, defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, Rose Medical Center (Rose), enforcing the lien. We affirm.
The facts are not in dispute. Claudia Holland was injured in a two-vehicle accident while a passenger in a vehicle driven by her husband, Wesley Holland. She then commenced an action against her husband seeking damages for bodily injuries she sustained. State Farm was the bodily injury insurer for Mr. Holland and it provided his defense. State Farm also provided personal injury protection (PIP) coverage for Mrs. Holland under, apparently, the same policy.
Rose provided medical services to Mrs. Holland for her injuries. On April 24, 1991, Rose filed a notice of hospital lien for $15,702.93 in the then pending litigation, gave notice to Mrs. Holland's counsel on that date, and to insurance counsel on July 11, 1991, all pursuant to, and in a manner provided by, ยง 38-27-102, C.R.S. (1994 Cum. Supp.).
Mrs. Holland commenced an arbitration proceeding against State Farm with respect to PIP benefits on March 28, 1991, and listed Rose as a provider of services. State Farm appeared in and defended the arbitration proceeding through other counsel. Mrs. Holland was awarded $52,913.42 in PIP benefits on November 27, 1991, including interest to date, together with undetermined attorney fees and costs. State Farm paid Mrs. Holland $70,000 pursuant to the arbitration award on January 17, 1992, which amount included costs, attorney fees, and interest to date without first satisfying the hospital lien filed by Rose.
Thereafter, on June 11, 1992, Mrs. Holland settled her claims against Mr. Holland for $1.00 and dismissed the litigation. The $1.00 was not paid to Rose.
Rose then filed this proceeding against State Farm seeking to enforce its hospital lien. From an adverse ruling, State Farm brings this appeal.
I.
A hospital lien is established and controlled by statute. Section 38-27-101, C.R.S. (1994 Cum. Supp.) provides with respect to the scope of such lien as follows:
Every hospital . . . which furnishes services to any person injured as the result of the negligence or wrongful acts of another person . . . shall . . . have a lien for all reasonable and necessary charges for hospital care upon the net amount payable to such injured person . . . out of the total amount of any recovery or sum had or collected, or to be collected, whether by judgment, settlement, or compromise, by such person . . . as damages on account of such injuries. . . .
The obvious intent of the hospital lien statute is to protect hospitals that provide medical services to an injured person who may not be able to pay but who may later receive compensation for such injuries which includes the cost of the medical services provided. See Annotation, Construction, Operation, and Effect of Statute Giving Hospital Lien Against Recovery from Tortfeasor Causing Patient's Injuries, 16 A.L.R. 5th 262 (1993).
A hospital lien may be perfected only by following certain statutory requirements. At the time Rose filed its lien, the pertinent statute establishing the requirements provided:
Such lien shall take effect if, prior to any such judgment, settlement or compromise, a written notice of lien containing the name and address of the injured person, the date of the accident, the name and location of the hospital, and the name of the person alleged to be liable to the injured person for the injuries received is filed by the hospital in the office
Page 1 2 3 4 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|